starcraftfandomcom-20200213-history
Talk:StarCraft: Frontline: Newsworthy
Sickness Zach Oliver did have the cameraman's cold rigged. He said he was suffering from a "very expensive cold." He did it because he wanted to be part of the embedded story. Maybe there is a better place to mention that, but I feel it is worth mentioning. --Thebrowncloud 16:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC) That's very likely, but I don't know if that's for sure. (How did he get access to the cameraman, to the disease, etc). I think "expensive" could just mean the victim missed out on a well-paying job. And yes, it did turn out well for Oliver, but UNN could have been desperate for a cameraman. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 01:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Ah, very good point. I didn't consider that meaning for "expensive cold." But you would think that, UNN being such a huge news provider, they would have plenty of cameramen on hand that weren't fired. The whole story and its circumstances are a bit ambiguous... --Thebrowncloud 03:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC) I agree. There's a good chance Oliver poisoned that guy. But to say so directly is speculation. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Timeframe Bit of a queery here. We have this story listed as being in '04, though the (censored) timeline in Heaven's Devils has it in '02, a date that actually doesn't contradict anything (shock, horror!). As I understand, the '04 date is derived from the "fourth anniversery" figure, which if so, would make it correct. However, while I've given the timeframe the benefit of the doubt, I've never actually seen this figure in the story, and given the contradiction, I'd like it to be pointed out if possible. If the figure does exist, I'd recomend leaving the timeframe as it is, given the ambiguous quality of the HD timeline. If not, I suppose it should be moved to '02.--Hawki 21:10, March 27, 2010 (UTC) Ambiguous or not, Heaven's Devils is: 1) The most recent novel (well, not actually out yet, but going to be soon). Blizzard can retcon stuff that doesn't make sense. I'm hoping the Colin Phash series will have sensible dates afterard. 2) Clearly this is Blizzard's direct work. (Well, it's clear to me.) 3) It has direct timestamps, which is less vague than the "four years" figure. (Although the fourth year anniversary is pretty obviously 2504; it's a retcon, IMO.) 4) The 2502 article should use the references notes "thing" to explain this, but maybe we shouldn't update the article until Heaven's Devils is actually out. 5) I anticipate a lot of date articles are going to change due to this. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 21:43, March 27, 2010 (UTC) I guess we all have our own opinions, but under our current canon policy, HD ranks as novel canon. Maybe Blizzard worked on the timeline, but if we believe that, we have to believe that they carried out direct work on every novel and every discrepency is a retcon. It's "clear" in my case that the timeline was worked on independently with sloppy referencing. This is backed up by Warcraft novels with a similar manual of style in regards to referencing in their end sections. In the end, all we have is the policy. Add notes to '02 by all means, though it's in the '02 section that things start to be more accurate, bar the bizzare placing of the DTS and Ghost (which, as per statements from Blizzard and Metzen, are of a higher canon tier in regards to placing than the HD timeline). From experience outside StarCraft, particuarly the Halo Encyclopedia, it's that these sort of errors are inevitable when outside sources carry out their own work, even with some direction from the host company. The errors don't come as a surprise to me.--Hawki 21:53, March 27, 2010 (UTC) "Maybe Blizzard worked on the timeline, but if we believe that, we have to believe that they carried out direct work on every novel and every discrepency is a retcon." I'm not sure I understand this. Isn't it possible the previous works were only indirectly authorized by Blizzard (eg I doubt Blizzard authorized the term "fourth year anniversary" for Newsworthy) but could have directly worked on the timeline. I hope Blizzard does clarify who, exactly, worked on Heaven's Devil's timeline. PSH aka Kimera 757 (talk) ) 13:00, March 28, 2010 (UTC) It's possible. It's also possible that they didn't work on the timeline, something that given its similar manual of style to WoW novels referencing, I'm inclined to believe. I actually never found the "fourth year anniversary" term, but regardless, we have our canon policy and might as well stick to it unless we get clarification stating otherwise.--Hawki 13:04, March 28, 2010 (UTC)